CIVIC DUTY

Poor Mitt Romney. He seems to have a good idea of how to simplify income taxes by lowering rates while closing loopholes. One of the ways of doing that would be to put a dollar limit on deductions. But he dare not specify any itemized deductions lest special interest groups devoted to particular items, such as mortgage interest, for fear of inviting attack instead of illuminating debate. The Wall Street Journal recently editorialized on this subject.

Reporters, pundits and political opponents always call for specifics from candidates. They, as intelligent people, know that candidates must avoid fulfilling such demands at all costs. To answer specifically is to ask for challenges that cannot cause anything but diversions. The candidate’s main point cannot be made with clarity and without changing the subject. In short, a candid candidate puts himself on the defensive rather than getting the opportunity to explain his position so as to garner support.

Example: Stating that charitable contributions should be eliminated would spring such criticism as the candidate was against research to find a cure for cancer. “He wants my aged granddad to suffer from prostate cancer and die.” No, the candidate says, he only wants lower effective tax rates on a wider base of taxable income. Voters can picture a dying grandfather; they cannot easily visualize a two-axes chart with red and blue lines zigzagging on the vertical values scale and the horizontal time line.

Romney has to resort to saying that he wants a certain figure – he usually picks $25,000, just as an example, he quickly interjects –for allowable deductions, with lower figures for taxpayers with smaller incomes and higher figures for those with big incomes. That helps, but as an explanation that is not specific enough for critics, and maybe even for supporters.

Not defending Romney or his opponent¸ the incumbent president, can it not be said that, oh, if only candidates could be outspoken and say what they really mean? Would such frank speech not help voters?  Sure, such an approach would give opponents fodder, yet counter arguments would necessarily provide better and more informative material on which voters could make decisions. Sound bites are good for ads, but not for enlightenment.

But can that ever be as modern American politics go? The press – meaning the news media -- won’t let that happen. Opponents won’t let happen. Do voters have a say? Theoretically, yes. To do so, they must be attentive, study records, ignore the spin, work their will. The first politician or political scientist to figure out how to bend the current system to something that informs the electorate more precisely shall have earned a Nobel (OK, maybe not such a skewed prize).

However, the reality of the current campaign (too close to call at this writing) is that President Obama is running against a straw man he and his managers are trying to convince voters Romney is. Dog on car roof, teen-age bully, hater of Big Bird, requesting a “binder of women,” wanting to tax the poor and help the rich, having a car elevator in his vacation garage, shipping jobs overseas as a venture capitalist --- that’s the presidential campaign for reelection, not nearly four years of decisions in office. The press goes along, for the most part with stories, but seemed uninterested in similar back-grounding on President Obama. Essentially, the president is not running a campaign touting his term.

Leadership of the most important country in the world would seem to demand more serious attention. How was the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) foisted on the American people? How much will it cost, not only in dollars but in jobs and overhead? Why is not a 15-member, unelected committee for keeping medical costs down not rhetorically a “death” panel?

Many voters may not like Romney, which is their right. But Romney, as a candidate, is more obligated to explain and to defend his proposals for dealing with the country’s problems than to be backed into fending personal attacks that actually have little to do with character or integrity.

American political campaigning falls short of the perfection most citizens would like. But until something else comes along, voters and the more of the citizenry had best educate themselves in their civic duties.